Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
Home › kkazan's page ›
Reply to comment
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities has 50 remote-ready activities, which work for either your classroom or remote teaching.
Narrative is determined not by a desire to narrate but by a desire to exchange. (Roland Barthes, S/Z)
What's New? Subscribe to Serendip Studio
Recent Group Comments
-
Serendip Visitor (guest)
-
Anonymous (guest)
-
kkazan
-
kkazan
-
kkazan
-
Anne Dalke
-
kkazan
-
kkazan
-
Paul Grobstein
-
kkazan
Recent Group Posts
A Random Walk
New Topics
-
4 weeks 1 day ago
-
4 weeks 4 days ago
-
4 weeks 4 days ago
-
4 weeks 5 days ago
-
4 weeks 5 days ago
Science vs. God
William James, "Dimensions of radical Empiricism, Conclusions"
"The scientist, so-called, is, during his scientific hours at least, so materialistic that one may well say that on the whole the influence of science goes against the notion that religion should be recognized at all." 762
I felt that I had to write on this quote, though a bit random. It does not speak to me, and does not seem representative of the entire piece, but it coincides so perfectly with something I read today. I received an e-mail (I know not the most reliable source) that was almost in complete opposition to this statement, and it made me start to think. The e-mail, supposably a conversations Albert Einstein had in one of his college philosophy classes, makes the statement, in opposition to his professor's point, that science is based on theories, most of which, "according to the established rules of the emprirical, stable, demonstrable protocol," cannot exist. So, Einstein states, science, like the belief in God is based on faith. Faith that, though we cannot prove through our senses that there is evolution, all we know shows that there is evolution.
Though this is a bit different from what James is saying, it seems to connect. If science is based on faith, as religion is, then science can in no way prove that there is no religion, and so science must recognize it. Now as this is a theory not of my own, I cannot explain how this conclusion is got at, but I will include the argument found in the e-mail at the end of my post. But, the fact that science is based on faith and belief and so cannot only disprove religion, but in a sense proves it by being unable to disprove it, seems like something that did not occur to James. It does however bring us back to James' "The Will to Believe," in which James says "I have brought with me to-night something like a sermon on justification by faith ... a defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters..." And so I find James coming to the same conclusion that Einstein comes to. "Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found?" Although I must say, I am not sure what this means or proves, or really what my conclusion to this post is. Except that, though both men were scientists, they both found religion to be a 'truth,' something based on faith and belief which cannot be proved, but is proved to do good in our lives and the lives of those who believe.
Now that I am not sure I have said anything original, here is the copy of the e-mail which spurred this line of thought.